That Entire Sanctification is a definite act of God’s grace, subsequent to the New Birth, by which the believer’s heart is purified and made holy. It cannot be attained progressively by works, struggle or suppression, but it is obtained by faith in the sanctifying blood of Jesus Christ. Holiness of life and purity of heart are central to Christian living – Luke 1:74,75; John 17:15-17; I Thessalonians 4:3,7,8; 5:22-24; Ephesians 5:25-27; Hebrews 2:11; 10:10,14; 13:11,12; Titus 2:11-14; I John 1:7; Hebrews 12:14; I Peter 1:14-16.
- The doctrine of entire sanctification is central in the mind of the God-head. The doctrine is at the hub or nucleus of Christian teaching.
- Sanctification is an instantaneous experience given to a believer to enable him cleave to God without the tendency to want to go astray or go away from the Lord.
- It is not a protracted or tedious process of growth. You do not grow INTO sanctification, but you can grow IN sanctification.
Holiness’, ‘Perfection’ and ‘Sanctification’ are the definitive terms used interchangeably. Holiness means entire freedom from sin; wholeness, spiritual health, moral integrity and purity. Therefore, holiness means the absence of sin (Luke 1:74,75; Psalm 93:5; I Peter 1:16; Hebrews 12:14).
Heb 12:14 David Scherer scherer at uiuc.edu
Thu Oct 28 13:26:02 EDT 1999
word order Heb 12:14 In this verse we find OU CWRIS OUDEIS OPSETAI TON KURION. Frequently the negative OU is translated “without” and treated as a relative pronoun (refering to hAGIASMON AND perhaps TO EIRHNH as well). Why is this preferred? Why not read OU as intensifying CWRIS? In that case, the verse says “Follow peace with all and holiness; alone no one will see the Lord.” In other words, peace and holiness serve to build the community, because that is where the Lord is manifest. This appears to be sensible in context, so why prefer the other translation?Dave
word orderHeb 12:14
Heb 12:14 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Oct 28 13:44:52 EDT 1999
Heb 12:14 APOKRIQEIS, was Re: Matt 11:25 etc… At 12:36 PM -0500 10/28/99, David Scherer wrote:>In this verse we find OU CWRIS OUDEIS OPSETAI TON KURION. Frequently the>negative OU is translated “without” and treated as a relative pronoun>(refering to hAGIASMON AND perhaps TO EIRHNH as well). Why is this>preferred? Why not read OU as intensifying CWRIS? In that case, the verse>says “Follow peace with all and holiness; alone no one will see the Lord.”>In other words, peace and holiness serve to build the community, because>that is where the Lord is manifest. This appears to be sensible in context,>so why prefer the other translation?(a) If you look at the diacritical marks, you’ll note that it isn’t OUthat’s printed in the text but hOU: this IS a relative pronoun and CWRIS isregularly used in a postpositive position with a preceding genitive object.And this seems to be the easiest way to make sense of this text; BUT(b) If you want to say that these diacritical marks weren’t in the earliestMSS anyway, so how can we know that it isn’t the negating OU instead of therelative pronoun in the genitive singular, one fairly strong indication isthat the construction you’re suggesting would really require, in terms ofordinary Greek idiom, an OUC with the OYETAI–i.e. the ordinary phrasingfor “not separately will anyone ever see the Lord” would probably besomething like “OUDE CWRIS OUC OYETAI OUDEIS TON KURION.” It really seemspreferable to read it the way it’s usually been read, i.e. with theomicron-upsilon understood as hOU, the relative pronoun in the genitivesingular.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Heb 12:14APOKRIQEIS, was Re: Matt 11:25 etc…